Non-abusive incest

[chickenwing71x]

This idea came from the kissxsis thread, a manga/anime about a boy and his lustful relationship with his two stepsisters.

Incest: The crime of cohabitation or sexual commerce between persons related within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)

Incest has been around as long as people have. For mankind to exist, the first humans must have had incestuous relationships. In most cultures it is not socially acceptable. For example, the Christian Bible specifically states (in Leviticus chpt18) that incest with a sibling is wrong, "whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere". That means you, step-siblings. But in other cultures it is encouraged (look at the past European royal families).

In some cases, there are siblings who are separated at birth, then unknowingly meet each other as adults, and, possibly due to GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction), are abnormally attracted to each other. Because they share genes, does it mean they can't love each other? Or is this just morally wrong?

There are also times where two single parents meet each other, and marry, and then their children begin dating (or more). These children have no blood relationship, so they are biologically clean. Is it still wrong? Often, they live together as siblings, and due to the Westermarck Effect (Imprinting to reduce sexual attraction) see each other as if they are real siblings.

Does incest have something going for it? Is it possible to really love a cousin or sibling (or half/step-sibling) in a romantic way? Or is it as despicable as many people think?

 

[Miashin]

According to most cultures, religions, and laws, it's wrong.

According to nature, whatever floats your boat. There are both benefits and negatives to incest. Incest, to a moderate degree can in fact strengthen certain genetic traits and add to survivability, while too much of it does lead to unfavorable mutations.

Something that I always have to point out in such discussions is the fact that almost all sexually reproducing organisms are designed to cope, and to an extent, thrive off of a certain level of incest. There is enough variability involved in the mixing and matching of the DNA of an offspring that it would take several generations of constant unrelenting incest for any unhealthy mutations to start showing.

Canids, for example, are amazingly adaptive and resilient to incestuous conditions, which they inherited from the lupine relatives. There is quite a lot of incest going on within a wolf pack, and it's not all that rare to find a pair of siblings playing the role of alpha males and females. These animals have adapted to incestuous conditions by making their genetic codes extremely variable. Even the slightest change in their DNA can lead to drastically different results. This is why dog breeds can at once be very closely related but also look nothing alike (compare a Chihuahua to a Saint Bernard). But not even these very adapted animals are entire immune to prolonged and forced incest, as is proven by the myriad of health problems plaguing any pure breeds.

That said, humans are not dogs and lack the canines adaptation for incest. Humans, in fact, don't seem to do so well with it. It takes many fewer generations for incest to show negative effects in humans than it does most other animals. And from my personal experience of working with animals, it seems that incest with the parents is many times more likely to cause negative health effects than incest between siblings. Incest with a parent can show negative health effects within one generation that would take several generations to appear between sibling incest.

Culturally speaking, people live on a double standard. It's okay to practice incest on our breeding stock and animals, but it's 'sick and wrong' to do so among people. Personally I believe that one can have TRUE romantic feelings towards a relative. It's not healthy, as I have already said, but people often do things that aren't healthy for them.

I personally find no appeal in my parents, sibling, and other relative, but I would never think less of a person that did have romantic feelings for a relative. Love's just that much of a crazy thing.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE For mankind to exist, the first humans must have had incestuous relationships.

No.
The first humans were not magically created from nothing, human beings evolved from a group of pre-human primats. Therefore, humans can have evolved from this group (or those groups) without commiting incest.


QUOTE In some cases, there are siblings who are separated at birth, then unknowingly meet each other as adults, and, possibly due to GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction), are abnormally attracted to each other. Because they share genes, does it mean they can't love each other? Or is this just morally wrong?

*shrug*
Do you think that family ties are created by DNA ?
I don't, therefore two siblings separated at birth and meeting again when they're twenty can't commit incest..

---------------


QUOTE
Canids, for example, are amazingly adaptive and resilient to incestuous conditions, which they inherited from the lupine relatives.

And yet, some races of dogs have very high probablities of having some sorts of genetical diseases (Cavalier King Charles for example are often subject to the mitral valve disease).
Of course, it comes from several generations of interbreeding; not from just one occurence.

 

[chickenwing71x]

QUOTE No.
The first humans were not magically created from nothing, human beings evolved from a group of pre-human primats. Therefore, humans can have evolved from this group (or those groups) without commiting incest.
This is getting into the creation vs evolution debate. Please do not directly state humans evolved as a fact, when it is still only a theory. In the theory of evolution: First of all, when the first single cell lifeforms evolved sexual reproduction there was at least some incest between them. It was likely between the offspring of a single asexual reproducing organism that underwent a mutation that carried on to offspring. When animals evolve, sometimes certain mutations occur that limit their reproductive ability, and require they only mate with other animals with the same mutation. While this does not have to happen, it most likely did at some point, and it directly encourages incest for a short period of time. Also, according to most creationist religions, there were originally very few humans (ie Adam and Eve) whose children must have had incestuous relationships. No matter which way you look at it, its almost impossible for humans to have evolved with no incest. So maybe I shouldn't have said "must have", but said "most likely" instead, as to allow for people with different views on creation/evolution. But in the end its just one badly phrased sentence that is wrong on a technicality, and not worth getting into a non-topic discussion over.


QUOTE *shrug*
Do you think that family ties are created by DNA ?
I don't, therefore two siblings separated at birth and meeting again when they're twenty can't commit incest..
EDIT: Did you mean they will not commit incest, or it should not be considered incest?

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (chickenwing71x @ Jun 21 2008, 05:17 AM)Does incest have something going for it? Is it possible to really love a cousin or sibling (or half/step-sibling) in a romantic way? Or is it as despicable as many people think?
To understand why incest is considered so bad one needs to consider the practical side of things. Having sexual relations to close relatives is not good for the health of the offspring. Sure people might not of known the genetics in the past but they could see the results.

It can even be argued that man evolved to suppress inbreeding. Siblings living with one another in early life have a suppressed sexual attraction to one another (this is known as the Westermarck effect). This could partly explain why people think it is so repulsive to have sex with a sibling. Then you can get issues of paedophilia (think of father to daughter or mother to son incest) which is also an issue heavily frowned upon in society.

The debate comes in what you consider incest. Nearly everyone would consider sex with a immediate family member as incest, but what of half siblings, cousins or even step families? In my opinion true incest can only occur if you share the same bloodline. So I would include the immediate family and half siblings. As for cousins it's more tricky. I guess it's a good habit to avoid first cousins (people who share the same grandparent) but second cousins or first cousins once removed etc are okay.

How many genes (on average) you share with:
Parents and siblings: 25%
Half siblings: 12.5%
First cousins: 6.25%


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jun 21 2008, 03:15 PM)Do you think that family ties are created by DNA ?
I don't, therefore two siblings separated at birth and meeting again when they're twenty can't commit incest..
Family is family whether you like them or not. If you share genes they are part of your family. Whether the said parent is fit to be a parent is another question but there can be no denying of the bonds. It's like pretending you don't have cancer because you don't like the condition.

If they are biologically related then they are related. It is irrelevant when they meet. Having a sexual relation with a sibling you just met is just as bad (in my eyes) as having sex with a sibling you knew your whole life. Love is all well and good but if it's at the expense of their children then it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[maqubex]

I think it totally depends on an individual...
Like gayness or something like that.
I don't really support it, but I don't really shun it either...
If the people participating in it are happy, then who are we to refuse them...
Maybe they can adopt or something if their children can have defects...
But the idea of motherxson and fatherxdaughter kind of sickens me.
Maybe brotherxsister is understandable....

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE This is getting into the creation vs evolution debate. Please do not directly state humans evolved as a fact, when it is still only a theory.

Gravity is also a theory.
But that an object thrown through my windows will fall in the grass is nevertheless certain.


QUOTE
EDIT: Did you mean they will not commit incest, or it should not be considered incest?


That even if they [wat] like rabbits, it's not incest.

-------------


QUOTE
Family is family whether you like them or not.

I agree with the sentence, but I disagree with what's behind.
You may hate the people who've raised you since childhood, they're family, right.
But the people who've never met you ? You have not psychological links with them, no emotional links (those links can be created, of course, but don't exist only through DNA).

Let's imagine that a baby has been adopted by a loving family, who treat him as their own child. Ten years later, the biological father comes back from nowhere.
Who the child should consider as his true father ?
For me, it's the father who raised him, even if he can created strong links with the biological one.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jun 21 2008, 03:15 PM)No.
The first humans were not magically created from nothing, human beings evolved from a group of pre-human primats. Therefore, humans can have evolved from this group (or those groups) without committing incest.
For animals to be of the same species they must be able to reproduce with each other AND produce fertile offspring. As humans can't produce viable offspring with monkeys they are different species. Even horses and donkeys are different species. Even though these animals produce offspring (mules) as mules are infertile then it still falls foul of the definition.

So humans can only reproduce with humans not very close cousins. New species normally arise when two populations are separated for a long period that the two population develop differences. After a period of time the two population can no longer reproduce with each other thus two species are born. I believe this is called allopatric speciation. There is another form called sympatric speciation but I can't remember how that works exactly. It's a long time since I had my biology lessons!

I believe it is more relevant to plants anyway...

This all means that at one point there was a very small human population. As they could not mate with close relatives inbreeding would be higher as incest would have occurred. So whether evolution occurred or not incest was a big factor in the beginning of humans. Look at any species with a small population and it's a common feature for inbreeding to increase. The same would have occurred for humans


QUOTE (Dalriada @ Jun 21 2008, 06:54 PM)Let's imagine that a baby has been adopted by a loving family, who treat him as their own child. Ten years later, the biological father comes back from nowhere.
Who the child should consider as his true father ?
For me, it's the father who raised him, even if he can created strong links with the biological one.

In this case the real father figure is the adopted parents. However the biological father still shares his genes with the child so he still has some bonds with them. That can never be taken away. I'm not saying the biological father has the right to father the child but in terms of reproduction it cannot work because he shares genes with the child, unlike the adopted parents.

If they share genes then there will always be problems with inbreeding. The same applies to siblings.

Off course having sex with your adopted parents/siblings has its own problems but it's purely a social problem unlike true incest which also has biological problems.

 

[chickenwing71x]

QUOTE (Sanity Panda @ Jun 21 2008, 02:48 PM)

It's amazing how this debate hasn't turned into one huge arguement. Incest is wrong mostly due social conditioning.
You do know that when close relatives have children, there is a higher risk of genetic defects/disorders? This is probably the basis for the social conditioning against it. Too much inbreeding weakens a species.

For step-siblings/parents, however, it is purely social, and the social aspect could be partially due to the Westermarck Effect (imprinting which results in less sexual attraction)

 

[Sanity Panda]

QUOTE (chickenwing71x @ Jun 21 2008, 01:18 PM) You do know that when close relatives have children, there is a higher risk of genetic defects/disorders? This is probably the basis for the social conditioning against it. Too much inbreeding weakens a species.

For step-siblings/parents, however, it is purely social, and the social aspect could be partially due to the Westermarck Effect (imprinting which results in less sexual attraction)
People don't have as much of a negative reaction towards people with genetic diseases breeding. To quote someone after an extensive disussion on another student forum...


QUOTE
There seem to be several arguments posed on this thread as to why incest should be illegal, I would summarise them as follows.

1. There are genetic ramifications for potential children
2. It is 'not natural' (in a similar sense to how homosexuality is sometimes branded not natural)
3. The majority of people and the law oppose it
4. It is disgusting (this 'argument' is usually kept brief i.e its advocates simply write "Eww" )

Number (4) is not an argument. It is an expression of opinion and certainly no foundation onto which to base a law. I find sweetcorn disgusting for example, but I do not think this justifies any claim I might make about its legality, nor do I think a majority group with a similar opinion would have any more legal clout.

This links to argument (3). The opinions of a majority group cannot be the basis for a law because the purpose of the law is not to enforce a common morality. If anything, the law exists to protect minorities from common prejudices. We can think about women's rights, or the civil rights movements to demonstrate this. This point is further highlighted by the Devlin/Hart debate about homosexuality. Equally the law cannnot be self justifying. We cannot say 'incest is wrong because it is illegal' (where "wrong" connotes morality) as this seems circular, by which i mean arguments such as:
i) incest is illegal because it is wrong
ii)why is it wrong?
iii) because it is illegal
This is clearly no justification.

Argument (2) is also flawed. Nature is fundamentally apathetic. It does not care what practices we perform. Indeed, it does not 'care' about anything at all - arguably it is not even a thing, merely the collective term for biological manifestations. This aside, there are clearer reasons why it is ridiculous for us to base our laws on what is 'natural'. It is natural for competitors to kill their rivals, does that justify it morally? It is natural for some animals to canibalise their young, does that mean it is right for all of 'nature'? Claiming that incest is not 'natural' is oversimplistic: even if we take a looser definition of natural. For instance, if we define 'natural' as common practice we reach absurd consequences. Playing the accordian is not a common practice, it is not 'natural' under this definition, does that make it wrong?

Argument (1) is the only one which seems to have clout, but I would argue that fundamentally it is not an acceptable justification for the illegality of incest.
The reason we have evolved not to find our siblings attractive is because large gene pools are more conducive to diversity and thus more conducive to survival in diverse environments. However our judicial system is not based on what is or is not conducive to natural selection, and it is lucky for most of us that this is the case. I, for example, have poor eyesight. Does this mean I should not be allowed to breed? This line of thought seems to descend rapidly into eugenics.
One might respond that the genetic problems faced by inbred children are much more serious than poor eyesight. This is true, but the point still holds. We cannot be sure that an inbred child will have genetic problems, we can at best appeal to high probabilities. However we can do the same with couples who have a likelyhood of their children developing Down's Syndrome. Does this mean we should prevent them having children?
Argument (1) also faces the problem of incestuous couples who do not wish to have children, perhaps because of the risks. How do we legislate against them? Do we sterilise them to make sure? But this would prevent them from ever having children (i.e with non related partners). Do we force the women to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant? This seems a huge violation of her rights.

In short, the case against incest is flawed at best. I would suggest the only reason it is currently illegal is because no politician or jurisprudent would be willing to champion something which so few people would benefit from and so many would oppose. However this means that our current law prejuduces against a minority simply because most people are incline to turn their nose up towards anything that is different from their own life choices. I, for one, think this is unacceptable.

--------

On a less arguementive approach...

Most people have been brought up not to view their siblings in that manner... in a funny way it's like when friendships go on for too long. You get thrown into the non sexual category because they no longer view you as a partner material.

No clue where this form of thinking first existed but I wouldn't be surprised if it has religious origins truthfully.

DO NOT DOUBLE POST. Read the forum rules.

My apologies. I forget about this rule >_>

 

[Headswabby]

QUOTE The opinions of a majority group cannot be the basis for a law because the purpose of the law is not to enforce a common morality. If anything, the law exists to protect minorities from common prejudices.

Really only recently has laws been trying to protect minorities from prejudices. For the vast majority of the time that humans have had laws, they seem to have been decided by the general majorities actions, so I don't know what this person was smoking.


Also, if two single parents got married, the kids would not have any direct bloodline relation, so I don't believe the law prohibits them from doing the dirty. That would include brothers, sisters, parents, or any family members gained from a marriage into a family.


Incest is acceptable under certain conditions, like the number of possible mates is extremely limited. Otherwise, quit being horny and find a different person. With a population of over 7 billion people, you don't have much excuse to do the deed with your sister or whatever. Seems like it's more for the cheap thrill of doing something extremely taboo more than anything.

 

[Patrick5087]

QUOTE (Headswabby @ Jun 22 2008, 12:02 AM) Seems like it's more for the cheap thrill of doing something extremely taboo more than anything.
Sadly i think that is more the case than not.

I think the problem is the whole stepsis/stepbrother sort of senerio. From a genetic stanpoint there isn't any greater risk in this senerio. In fact after the Sister could change her name back to whatever the fathers name was before any offical marrgie thing, just to make it look clean.

That IMO isn't a real issue for me. It's alittle strange but hey if you find the love of your life eh, I say its God's fault

Now for accutal blood relationships, honestly I dont think it should happen but, as it goes if they both have say environmental issues, honestly they would have mental issues anyway. So its hard to say what is right or wrong in this positon. From a long term issue... its wrong but... look at our race atm... 6-7 billion people... Right now we have a huge genetic pool to pull from. So really the arugment for right and wrong on this issue can probably be stopped here. As for making a law against it, whatever the majority of people think is fine by me.

(YAY finally a good point about being a only child YAY ME!!!!!!! dont have to deal with these issues. LOL

)

 

[kawaiis2]

OK in my opinion!
You cant stop incest. I mean, i think as well that its kinda wrong to have such a relationship with your parents or siblings, but then it is normally acted out because you love them right? (i know...cheesy).
Its just a matter of how much you love them and how you want to develop your love to them. If someone asked you do you love your parent, brother or sister, the answer should be yes...right, so does that count as incest?
You'll probably thinking "no, because i love them only as a family member", but what does that mean? whats the difference between loving them as a family member and loving them as someone else?

It might be because you want something more in the relationship, like getting married, having kids etc etc...but face it, if your brother or sister wasn't your brother or sister and was just someone you know, would you develop feelings for them? If you say no then it might mean you really don't love your family at all, it just based on their identity as a part of your family...and more like you have to, or its just utterly wrong!

BUT! I'm not encouraging you to start a incestuous relationship with your family, its just my opinion on incest and not your love for your family!!

PLEASE THOUGH!! no bad comments on my opinion and please no swearing or saying "your out of your mind", "eww...gross!", stuff like that! THANK YOU

 

[Sanity Panda]

Agreed with Kawaii. Love doesn't work like that... If you spent as much time with a sibling, but with the idea that they aren't sibling. Feelings will start to develop.

People crushing on their cousins is an example of this act taking place. They're close enough to be considered family, yet at the same time... distance enough to not see them as siblings. Nothing develops from these relationships because society conditions us not to do so, so eventually we stop viewing them in a crushing manner and it changes back into normal "family" love.

Brothers and sister is sort of different to the above. But the essence is the same. It's a real shame that society seperates two loving couples and accuse them of a cheap thrill, when in reality that does not need to come into play.

Love is not rational. And these people suffer for getting in a relationship that is out of social norms. Hypothetically it's like back a few hundred years ago, if an asian person started dating a person out of their race. It's for the thrill right?

QUOTE (Patrick5087 @ Jun 22 2008, 01:00 AM) Now for accutal blood relationships, honestly I dont think it should happen but, as it goes if they both have say environmental issues, honestly they would have mental issues anyway.

As for making a law against it, whatever the majority of people think is fine by me.


What's normal?
The majority of people once felt that homosexuality was a disease (and some continue to do so). The earth was the center of the universe... so fourth. Problematic.

 

[biankita]

Generations of my father's side are incestous. Well, nothing like brocons and siscons, but they usually marry their first cousins to keep the money in the family like how most traditional Chinese families are. Well, my generation is now feeling the impact as most of my cousins are very sickly (though of like the physical deforminities you'd usually see as by-products of incest). It's no longer practiced in my family though. Anyway, even if it was, I was raised on my mother's side of the family where incest is eww. And anyway, there are laws in my country nowadays that you cannot marry you are related to up to the third degree.

Anyway, though I couldn't imagine myself being like that, I enjoy watching/reading stuff like Angel Sanctuary, etc. because I find the drama to be on a much higher level since the concept is too taboo.

 

[bloody-mess]

Hmm so I think Incest a real incest with a relative sharing same blood is wrong! why you ask ? Because of the problems which come with it their children will be borne defective and etc. so incest must be avoided as far as it is possible and never must it be encouraged .

But what about people who fell in love even trough they are sibling well I find It really wrong to punish them yes it is wrong . no one has right to punish someone because they love another love is a strange thing if it happens it happens without your own will so what to do with people who are in love even through they are siblings first I think they shouldn’t have kids they may adopt one and rise him/her as their own but I say they can live as a normally couple as long as they don’t do harm and I mean with harm don’t have their own children because they can produce defective children so law could say that they are forbidden to have their own children that all that law can do about it other things are just cruel and inhuman braking peoples life only because they love each other.

About step Bro/sis thing well I don’t see problem there at all as far as I care do whatever you want society can go and……. I don’t care about what some mob says it doesn’t do any harm so if they feel like it they can do whatever comes to their mind.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Sanity Panda @ Jun 22 2008, 12:30 AM)People don't have as much of a negative reaction towards people with genetic diseases breeding. To quote someone after an extensive disussion on another student forum...
That is because the genetic defect was caused by factors outside their control. The parents did not know they had the recessive genes responsible for the birth defect. The chance for both parents to carry a recessive gene is pretty low. If the couple are siblings however then the chances of a birth defect are far greater. Knowing that and having children anyway can even be seen as irresponsible parenting. Much like how a mother drinks heavily while pregnant. Okay so drinking during pregnancy isn't outlawed but it is heavily frowned upon.


QUOTE 2. It is 'not natural' (in a similar sense to how homosexuality is sometimes branded not natural)

Argument (2) is also flawed. Nature is fundamentally apathetic. It does not care what practices we perform. Indeed, it does not 'care' about anything at all - arguably it is not even a thing, merely the collective term for biological manifestations. This aside, there are clearer reasons why it is ridiculous for us to base our laws on what is 'natural'. It is natural for competitors to kill their rivals, does that justify it morally? It is natural for some animals to canibalise their young, does that mean it is right for all of 'nature'? Claiming that incest is not 'natural' is oversimplistic: even if we take a looser definition of natural. For instance, if we define 'natural' as common practice we reach absurd consequences. Playing the accordian is not a common practice, it is not 'natural' under this definition, does that make it wrong?
Unlike homosexuality people have a natural tendency to go against siblings. It's called the Westermarck effect. What this means is siblings that live with one another in early life have a suppressed sexual attraction to each other. The effect is strong enough that you don't even need to know if the person is your sibling. The important point is you should be living with your sibling at an early age. So there is definitely a natural mechanism that guards against incest. Sure social pressures also plays it's part but it's more than that. It also explains why point 4 exists.

So why does happen? Because increased inbreeding reduces the diversity and health of a given population which is not good for a species survival. So this effect is a defence mechanism much like pain.

About cannibalism... Ignoring the ethics, cannibalism is not a great idea as you provide another root for people to get diseases. Namely diseases that don't carry in animals (think stuff like HIV). Unless the body was tested extensively for diseases prior to consumption then there will always be a chance for infection. The danger is less for animals because what effects cows may not affect man.


QUOTE However our judicial system is not based on what is or is not conducive to natural selection, and it is lucky for most of us that this is the case. I, for example, have poor eyesight. Does this mean I should not be allowed to breed? This line of thought seems to descend rapidly into eugenics.
One might respond that the genetic problems faced by inbred children are much more serious than poor eyesight. This is true, but the point still holds.
Every human should have the right to a healthy life. So parents should at least attempt to give them the best chance. That means mothers should reframe from drinking loads during pregnancy etc. The same can should said for incest. If both parents are know they are siblings then they are being somewhat selfish as they are putting their own interests ahead of the child.

So how to stop it? Sure sterilisation may provide the ultimate solution but it sort of goes against human rights. What is usually enough is to make the act illegal. Do that and you send a clear message that the action is wrong. Over time people will develop negative attitudes towards the behaviour and it will become a lot less common. Look at capital punishment, drink driving etc. All these actions were acceptable until legalisation came in place to make it illegal. People now think it is wrong to do these things.

 

[khael]

I'd like to add that recently, some scientists gave the "A-OK" to have a sexual relationship with first cousins. In other words, science doesn't consider having a relation with first cousins incestous anymore. I saw this in a tv news channel. I'm gonna try and look for the source again. Just a thing to bring up to add to the discussion.

 

[Sanity Panda]

QUOTE That is because the genetic defect was caused by factors outside their control. The parents did not know they had the recessive genes responsible for the birth defect. The chance for both parents to carry a recessive gene is pretty low. If the couple are siblings however then the chances of a birth defect are far greater. Knowing that and having children anyway can even be seen as irresponsible parenting.

Unfortuantely I can't argue on their behalf as I'm not the person. You may still feel that it's irresponsible but the point is that many people do not have as much of a negative reaction towards people breeding with dominant genes. Some even argue that these people should be allowed to be together, under the idealism that is love.


QUOTE Unlike homosexuality people have a natural tendency to go against siblings. It's called the Westermarck effect. What this means is siblings that live with one another in early life have a suppressed sexual attraction to each other. The effect is strong enough that you don't even need to know if the person is your sibling. The important point is you should be living with your sibling at an early age. So there is definitely a natural mechanism that guards against incest. Sure social pressures also plays it's part but it's more than that. It also explains why point 4 exists.

Fair enough. I don't deny this exists but my question is what originally caused the Westermarck effect. The fact that it doesn't need to biologically related shows that it's not genetics but mental. You cannot deny that it's possible this effect may come from conditioning. It does not mean that all people must be influenced by this effect.


QUOTE So why does happen? Because increased inbreeding reduces the diversity and health of a given population which is not good for a species survival. So this effect is a defence mechanism much like pain.

My above question.

 

[Headswabby]

QUOTE (Sanity Panda @ Jun 22 2008, 04:58 AM) Love is not rational. And these people suffer for getting in a relationship that is out of social norms. Hypothetically it's like back a few hundred years ago, if an asian person started dating a person out of their race. It's for the thrill right?
Love is not rational, but you're kidding yourself if you think love is the only reason people get married and have offspring. The people suffer because they go outside of the social norms, and their bloodline suffers because of their impudence. Screw the personal feelings and try to create healthy children. It's not like their sister is the only person they could love.

People didn't go outside of their race because they were afraid of mixing blood. They were afraid for a variety of reasons, either for superiority/inferiority complexes, or simply because they didn't have opportunity. And this example is completely separate from incest, because the two are/were taboo for different reasons.